Jersey Ads = done deal

[Cornuck]

If Bettman said it, it must be true!

Bettman also threw cold water on the possibility that advertisements are coming to NHL jerseys sooner than later. It might be inevitable because of the money available, Bettman conceded, but the league isn't in any rush. "We'll watch what's going on with other sports and the magnitude of the opportunity," Bettman said. "But it's not something that we're focused on right now because, frankly, I think we've got the best uniforms in all of sports. I think this is one of those where we're never going to be an initiator. "We may get dragged kicking and screaming, but it's not something that's a front-burner for us."

http://www.nhl.com/ice/m_news.htm?id=739545

[donlever]

If Bettman said it, it must be true!

I think this is one of those where we're never going to be an initiator. "We may get dragged kicking and screaming, but it's not something that's a front-burner for us."

You're already not a front runner Gary.

The inevitable double talk?

[dbr]

Oh my god that Bettman quote is gold. "We may get dragged along kicking and screaming," yeah I'm sure the folks at league HQ are going to wring their hands all the way to the bank on this - once some other league has tested the waters for them, of course.

But hey if this kind of posturing makes things easier for Clam and the other men of the (poly double-knit) cloth to handle..

I'll be done with this soon enough, I think.

Rumours of the above continue to rear their ugly head (which is not to suggest that I am not enjoying the back and forth).

So what, this thread is to you what crack is (allegedly) to Rob Ford?

What can I say, arguing on the internet is to me what substance abuse and associating with known criminals are to Rob: irresistable!

[Cookie La Rue]

If Bettman said it, it must be true!

I wrote a letter to Gary claiming never to buy a jersey anymore...

[ClamRussel]

The thing about TV and advertisers is, you sell them the league (or specific franchises) as a whole and they take the package deal.. Scotiabank or Rogers or whoever aren't going to pull their sponsorship from the Senators because they played in that game with the awful attendance; they'll be sold a deal covering an entire season or multiple seasons and they'll buy in knowing that when the Senators are broadcast nationally in Canada or playing to a respectable crowd in Ottawa or Montreal or Toronto or Boston or New York or wherever else, that there are tens of thousands more eyes on their logo.

Any package deal would be worth more if there wasn't teams playing to empty arenas.

(I apologize if I'm conflating "your arguments" with "things you said for some reason other than forming an argument" but) your arguments been based mostly around falsehoods ("the league has an attendance problem they aren't addressing," or when that couldn't be substantiated, "okay well attendance is improving but the league should not have any problem franchises before/instead of adding jersey advertising because they can't do both") or your own aesthetic values which.. I mean surely you can appreciate that those aren't universal.

Your "values" aren't universal either, otherwise why hasn't the league implemented this in the last 15 years (the period you described)? Why the reluctance? Because the NHL (and MLB) are aware the majority of fans would not be in favour of this and they know it's tacky.

My point isn't mixed at all; the league doesn't get a lot of my business already, selling ad space on jerseys isn't going to help them get my money but that doesn't mean that I think it's going to hurt them overall or that I think jersey ads mark some fundamental change in course for the business, or that the jerseys themselves are (in your words) sacrosanct.

I don't have to like every single trapping of the league's pursuit of profit, but understanding it means that as we move further away from the game/league/business I knew when I was younger, I don't have to be bogged down by some idealized notion of what it was or maintain any illusions about what it is.

The illusion that's being maintained is that not sharing your opinion on this is "bogging" anyone down or "idealized". Throwing out accusations of "falsehoods" and "illusions" is not conducive to a discussion. One can accept the NHL's pursuit of profit and still not want to see advertisements on jerseys. Someone at NHL marketing says it's coming, Bettman then says it's not on the table. So it's not a certain outcome but rather there's a market research based reason it hasn't yet happened.

[dbr]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl-expected-to-featu ... y-1.194841

[Cookie La Rue]

Bastards, now through the backdoor...

[ClamRussel]

“I’m in no rush to put advertising on our sweaters. I think we've got the best jerseys in all of sports. I like the history and tradition and the way they look. I’ve repeatedly said we wouldn’t be the first and you’d probably have to bring me kicking and screaming.” - Bettman

[dbr]

It'll be interesting to see, won't it Clam.

I mean, somehow I don't believe that you think "the words of Gary Bettman" belong high on the list of the world's most credible sources..

[ClamRussel]

He's now on record, ...let's see if it plays out like the Vegas story.

[dbr]

Equipment is just that, branded. The manufacturer sticks their own name on it. Not really the same thing as putting a McDonalds logo on a jersey that McDonalds has nothing to do with other than paying to put their name there.

Really? So when Nike bought up Bauer and started putting the swoosh all over equipment, that wasn't an attempt to advertise their brand to a larger market? How about when Reebok bought up the company that owned Koho and CCM? Doing some light reading it looks like the jerseys are still made in the same place they were years before Reebok were involved so how is this not just another corporate logo slapped onto an ubiquitous product to get more eyes onto it? We can ask the same questions when Reeboks parent company (Adidas) pulls the same move in a couple of years.

Adidas will now pay the NHL a reported $70m per season to put their logo on jerseys, err I mean for the privilege of manufacturing them

First they came for the CCM logo..

[Hockey Widow]

Adidas will now pay the NHL a reported $70m per season to put their logo on jerseys, err I mean for the privilege of manufacturing them

First they came for the CCM logo..

Next, Cineplex will have to pay movie goers that have to sit through commercials just to see a movie they paid to see!

[Hockey Widow]

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl-adidas-reach-seve ... l-1.360935

Adidas deal now official. No jersey ads yet on NHL jerseys but NHLPA seems to be pushing for it. Maybe on international jerseys. Of course it would form part of revenue sharing so I can see why the PA wants it, keep that cap going up. No official announcement on value of deal.

[Topper]

Reebok, the previous brand name, is owned by Adidas. Bettman said yesterday no plans and no discussion, formal or informal on placing ads on jerseys.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/nhl ... -1.3229229

[Meds]

Reebok, the previous brand name, is owned by Adidas. Bettman said yesterday no plans and no discussion, formal or informal on placing ads on jerseys.

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/nhl/nhl ... -1.3229229

I recall a similar line from Gary when expansion was first discussed not so long ago.....

The commissioner keeps his job by the owner's good graces. So long as money is being made then he's safe. Bettman himself may be totally honest about not actually being a fan of ads on the jerseys, however, if there are dollars to be made you can bet that some of the owners will say "fuck tradition" and sign on the dotted line.

Bettman is really just the face and spokesman of the ownership group.